Why hasn't Bush been impeached already?
Obviously George W Bush is the worst president we've ever had. What a lying liar he is. Now he's told another BIG LIE, saying that he would be in Texas for Thanksgiving, then sneaking off to Iraq. Important Journalists were understandably indignant:
several of the editors, news directors and producers responsible for directing coverage of the Bush administration said that they found aspects of the White House strategy to be deceptive, excessively secretive and disruptive of the relationship between writer and editor.
One editor objected , for example, to a briefing that Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, gave to reporters in Crawford early Wednesday afternoon.
"The president will be spending Thanksgiving at his ranch here in Crawford." Ms. Buchan said. "If there are updates, additionally, to what he does on Thanksgiving, we'll try and keep you posted."
Ms. Buchan said yesterday she learned of the president's plans to go to Baghdad only after that news briefing. Mr. Allen, in a report to his colleagues in the White House press corps, quoted Mr. Bartlett as saying that the president signed off on the Iraq trip several hours before the briefing.
To Philip Taubman, the Washington bureau chief of The New York Times, that briefing appeared to constitute "deliberate deception."
Mike Abramowitz, the national editor of The Washington Post, said he did not learn that Mr. Allen had gone to Iraq until after the reporter contacted the newspaper's foreign desk from Air Force One on the ride back. He said he found it troubling that the White House had made it hard for the journalists to apprise their editors of their travel plans.
How DARE the president slip out without consulting Mike Abramowitz, national editor of The Washington Post?
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - John Mudd
The Thanksgiving event where he "surprised" American troops in Iraq was a brilliant publicity stunt, which it appears it was designed to be. The event was breaking news, interupting all other news and TV programming on at the time. Had it not been a "surprise" visit it would not have been breaking news. It was a very smart move on White House PR people's part. The element of "surprise" can make anything newsworthy that may not have been newsworthy, otherwise. I'm glad he visited the troops. I'm sure it boosted their morale, and I'm sure the media coverage was also beneficial to their morale. If we are to be victorious is restoring Iraq, the high morale level of our troops will be a virtuous and valuable asset.
Cheers.
2 - Craig Lyndall
Very very funny Mr. Barger. At least Mr. President got smarter this time and didn't embarrass us by donning an airforce uniform or anything like that. That gave the democrats a lot of material and I can't say I blame them.
3 - JR
The bit of blue text was a nice touch. Silly me, I wanted to click on it to see the link.
4 - Tom Johnson
I would say that the President showing up in the most hostile environment the US knows right now is pretty big news, John. And why would they not take advantage of Bush meeting troops in Iraq for publicity? What president has done something like this and not had cameras in tow? Any other president, of any political affiliation, would have done the same thing.
The element of "surprise" can make anything newsworthy that may not have been newsworthy, otherwise.
WRONG. Had Bush announced Wednesday that he'd be in Iraq for Thanksgiving, it would STILL have been all over the news. And anti-Bush people would still be complaining that it was a "brilliant publicity stunt." I'm sure, were it Gore instead of Bush, it would have been a heartfelt, heartwarming, generous, kind, beautiful, emotional, inspirational undertaking by THE GREATEST PRESIDENT THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN. (Add in an appropriate amount of exclamation points, depending on your level of exuberance for Gore.)
5 - Natalie Davis
Nope, would have been a publicity stunt no matter the media whore's party.
6 - Eric Olsen
It served all of these purposes: it was dangerous, it was thoughtful, it was unexpected, it was a media coup. Give credit where credit is due.
7 - John Mudd
Tom, it would not have been "BREAKING NEWS" unless it was a surprise. If you had read my post completely, you would have noticed that was the context that my statement was made in.
I didn't bash President Bush for visiting the troops. In fact, I said it was a good thing. I applaud him for it. However, from a PR perspective, and from a person who has practiced PR, it was a great publicity stunt, as well.
Now the media will be talking about this surprise event for days, since it's a historical first and a surprise, whereas if he had visited Iraq like every other president would have, it would have just been material for the evening news. Many factors make the surprise visit more newsworthy than a regular visit, including the dangers involved in a surprise visit.
I voted for Bush and spoke for him live on MSNBC, not for Gore.
Lighten up.
Cheers.
8 - Tom Johnson
John, I read your comment completely and entirely, and understood perfectly well what you said, but I think you're wrong. The second Air Force One was spotted over Iraq the news media would have jumped all over it. It would have interrupted football games and parades all over the nation, even if there'd been a week's notice. The news organizations aren't going to pass up any opportunity to be first to cover anything, especially something with the danger inherent in visiting Iraq. Had Bush's plane been shot at, people would be screaming today wanting to know why this story wasn't being covered.
9 - Jim Carruthers
That you are all sqabbling over a publicity stunt, and staged propoganda event leaves me shaking my head.
This is lyour head of state, and what counts is dressing up in a costume and staging an event in an area probably no more violent than downtown Washington, Detroit or East St. Louis.
Geez you people in the USA really need to get your shit together.
10 - John Mudd
Tom, you're missing the point.
The point is that this was a really great publicity stunt.
Air Force One was not used because, as I pointed out, the element of surprise was in play. The element of surprise made this story breaking news because the non-traditional elements weren't used. This provides us with the #1 element for news: (1) It's unusual.
The surprise visit provides us with another element - it's never been done by any other president, providing us with another element of newsworthiness: (2) It's new.
(3) It's prominent - it's the President of the United States.
(4) It's controversial - He didn't tell the media, he didn't even tell some members of the secret service. Oh my God! He didn't tell the media in advance! (That's controversial to the media, allowing them to debate that issue that they weren't told for days, rather than President Bush's Iraq policy, which has been under fire by Democrats for months.)
(5) It's urgent! - Because it was a complete surprise to everyone it was deemed urgent by the media, making it breaking news.
It was a great publicity stunt, really. I wish I could shake the hand of the person who was brilliant enough to plan it. Of course, given who I've shaken hands with, I may already have.
I'm sure the President was safe the entire time. Our Secret Service men and women are very good at what they do. I think the White House spun the "unsafe" line just to get more media interest. The White House does have the best spin machine in the land. Of course, they would have to have it to come up with this great publicity stunt and have people not believe that it was actually a publicity stunt.
Cheers.
11 - JR
"Air Force One was not used because..."
Am I misunderstanding something? The account I read said that Air Force One was used and that a British Airways pilot spotted it en route.
The Washington Post also says that Roosevelt's trip to Yalta was unannounced, although that was a long time ago.
12 - John Mudd
The point still remains that it was a great publicity stunt.
T.R. was brilliant at getting the media's attention.
Cheers.
13 - JR
Actually I meant F.D.R.
A great publicity stunt indeed. Also a great morale boost for the troops in Iraq. Regardless of whether or not this gets exploited during the campaign, Bush did the right thing.
14 - Al Barger
Jim, I find it interesting that you would say that going to Baghdad was "staging an event in an area probably no more violent than downtown Washington, Detroit or East St. Louis." That would seem to be a concession that in fact Iraq is largely under pretty good control, if it is comparable to our own major urban areas.
15 - Dan
Al, I wouldn't venture in to the heart of those cities at night unarmed. But I guess safety is relative.
I guess the costume Jim refers to is an Airforce flight suit. Standard issue for fighter jets, the flying of which Bush has qualified for, and has flown.
16 - Al Barger
After a quarter century of Saddam's jackboot on their necks, saying that Baghdad's a somewhat rough neighborhood where you might want to pack your six shooter constitutes a HUGE improvement.
17 - Dawn
And what do ya know? He had his pick of news reporters to bring with him, and he brought the ones from Fox! What a surprise...
Sure, it was a nice gesture on his part. But yes, I am cynical about this.
This is part of his job as a president. He's the commander in chief of the military. He should be visiting the troops!
18 - Al Barger
Sure, he's the commander in chief, and it was a big thrill for the troops to see him. Still it was wrong, because it made Dubya look good. I think there should be a rule against presidents doing stuff that will make themselves look good. It's not fair!
19 - Steele Shepherd
If you really believe that President Bush lied - that there were never any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and he took us to war solely for his oil buddies -- then read this, and if you are the fair minded person that I believe you to be ...
Pass this on to your e-mail list and democratic friends:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Senator. Bob Graham (D, FL,)
and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Senator. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Senator. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Senator. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Senator. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Senator. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
20 - Nick Jones
Your point being that politicians in both wings of the Property Party are lying sacks of shit? Knew that.
21 - Steele Shepherd
I hope you found the previous response with comments both interesting and enlightening. It would be rather short sighted to comment on the actions of President Bush with regard to Iraq and possible weapons of mass destruction without viewing the statements of President Clinton, John Kerry and a host of others in Washington. I believe Bush should have just said we are going to remove Saddam because of 'Bloody Friday'; that was a chemical weapon attack Saddam initiated on the Kurdish people in his own country. Mostly women and children were killed, over 5,000 people that day, and that was only one of many similar attacks. And they died horrible deaths from cyanide bombs. See the photos and more information about Bloody Friday at the link I've provided on this specific post. Steele Shepherd.
22 - Nick Jones
And if we hadn't set SH up in power and provided him with his starter kit of biological/chemical weapons materials, the whole world would be better off.
The Somoza family, the Diem brothers, Trujillo, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Noriega, Ariel Sharon, the royal families of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait - why do we keep giving support to these murderous scumbags?
Speaking of which, here's one of our new best friends. Bets on when this guy becomes a problem, the administration in power will say "we had no idea!"?
23 - Steele Shepherd
You are correct. Not sure why we think we can buddy up with extremists and those who would torture others without believing they will turn on the US later on. Bin Laden is a good example also. SS